Thursday, February 21, 2008

Pre-debate predictions

March 4th is still aways away and there could be a knock-out punch or two thrown in one of the two Democratic debates to come (including one tonight), but here are my predictions for next week.

Clinton wins Texas and Rhode Island
Obama wins Ohio and Vermont

Clinton drops out.

ALSO: More on that McCain thing, I wrote a pretty bold headline last night after watching this on CNN:
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Folks, we can talk about a lot of things here tonight but with this story breaking, and the accusations against Senator McCain suggesting, intimating, a relationship with this woman going back eight years ...

GOODWIN: Well --

DOBBS: I just don't see how we can go beyond this. I think we've got to focus on this and try to understand this as best we can.

GOODWIN: Also, Lou, if the allegations are correct it's an affair but it also involves she's a lobbyist and according to "The Times" and involves doing favors for her clients. So there's not just a personal life issue. There's a governmental issue, particularly for McCain and the sense of rectitude that he conveys.

DOBBS: The instinct here is to say this is the man's personal life, why deal with it, but in this instance, the suggestions are quite a bit stronger and broader.

HALPERIN: Well, I think there's a couple of things and I think Michael hit two of them very smartly. One is McCain's greatest strength is this public image of rectitude, that he's a man of honor. And this is a potential problem for him in that respect.

And then the other is, not the personal, but the fact that because she is a lobbyist, because she has clients with business before the committee that there's a potential for reporters to look more than "The Times" has into the question of whether her clients ever got special favors from Senator McCain. The story suggests that, talks about it. It's denied in the story but that does present a potential problem for him.

SHEINKOPF: And the campaign gifts or the other gifts that may or may not be illegal of private flights with someone who is not supposed to be there necessarily, how often did it occur, what else did they give him, all of the stuff will start to percolate.

DOBBS: And the journalism involved here coming out as it has before the paper is printed on the Web site, with the suggestion again that this has been in the works for awhile. Is the "New York Times" endorsing Democratic candidates and having done so for decades, is that timing suspect on the part of the journalistic organization in your mind?

SHEINKOPF: Not suspect in that way. Look, these are good reporters at "The New York Times." Some of them are terrific reporters. Jim Reutenberg is a very good reporter, someone I've known probably for most of the last 20, 25 years.

DOBBS: Me too.

SHEINKOPF: He's a good reporter, honorable and did his job.
Having seen the McCain story reported today, can you believe they were reading the same thing as us? Way over the top.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

From the Wolfman's blog:

Here’s the bottom line: I suspect this story, as we in the journalistic community say, has legs. News organizations are not going to let up – not yet, especially when a potential President of the United States is concerned. -- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/blitzer-journalists-not-going-to-let-up-on-mccain/

You seem to be rooting for McCain now, eh?

Anonymous said...

Lou Dobbs is a bigoted xenophobe with an ego the size of Texas!

nbt said...

What is the motivation behind this drive-by smear? If it's a concoction by the right-wing base of the repubs, then wouldn't it make more sense if it came out right before the Florida primary, why now??

Furthermore, since the allegations are regurgitated and weak, it might actually help him with younger voters who view McCain as nothing more than an old grandfather two steps away from his burial.

nbpolitico said...

Nope, I'm not rooting for McCain. The left and right wings seem to have agreed, as did the paper's own ombudsman, that the Times article was unfair and unproved.